EIN: 221769370
UEI: YSJ7LNNU3LR8
Audited by: PKF O'Connor Davies LLP
Oversight agency: 84 [Department of Education]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of August 28, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on February 16, 2026. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by August 16, 2026 (13 days ago).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on January 22, 2025 — management decision was due July 22, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on January 23, 2024 — management decision was due July 23, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on March 29, 2023 — management decision was due September 29, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on March 16, 2022 — management decision was due September 16, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on March 31, 2021 — management decision was due October 1, 2021.
During our testing of the Higher Educational Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) ? Institutional Portion, we identified the College charged certain payroll expenses for faculty and other support staff based on predetermined allocations of time, however, these allocations were not always adjusted based on actual time spent or salary paid. We selected 40 individuals from various positions to test the allocation of their payroll and for 5 of the individuals selected, we noted an error in the calculation resulting in questioned costs. Questioned Costs: The actual question costs are $9,039 and the likely questioned costs are $117,205. Context: During our testing of Federal grant compliance, we selected payroll related charges to the grant program. We requested the College to provide us with the support of the payroll charged to the grant. Per 2 CFR 200.430(i), charges to federal activities must be based upon records that accurately reflect the work performed, are supported by a system of internal control, are incorporated into the official records of the non-federal entity, and support the distribution of the employee?s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives when the employee works on a federal award and non-federal award. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.430(i)(viii)(C) requires the entity?s system of internal controls include processes to review an after-the-fact distribution of the actual activity of each employee for whom charges were made to a federal grant based upon estimates. We noted instances where individuals who were selected for testing were calculated utilizing the incorrect salary, instances where the estimated total pay was not accurate based upon the start date for employees? positions, and an instance where an individual did not work during the period covered by the program. Cause and Effect: Violations of grant requirements could lead to a potential reduction in funding or return of funds. Recommendation: We suggest the College improve its current process in place to review the calculation of expenditures charged to the program for accuracy prior to submission of draw down. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: College management concurs with the finding and has commenced corrective measures in terms of validating the expenditures charged to the specific programs. This will be accomplished through internal controls, separation of duties and creation of a control checkpoint to verify the accuracy of grant expenditures.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria: In accordance with CFR 200, Uniform Guidance, the Federal OMB Compliance Supplement, the College was required to expend awards for allowable activities in accordance with the applicable compliance requirements. Statement of Condition: During our testing of the Higher Educational Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) ? Institutional Portion, we identified the College charged certain payroll expenses for faculty and other support staff based on predetermined allocations of time, however, these allocations were not always adjusted based on actual time spent or salary paid. We selected 40 individuals from various positions to test the allocation of their payroll and for 5 of the individuals selected, we noted an error in the calculation resulting in questioned costs. Questioned Costs: The actual question costs are $9,039 and the likely questioned costs are $117,205. Context: During our testing of Federal grant compliance, we selected payroll related charges to the grant program. We requested the College to provide us with the support of the payroll charged to the grant. Per 2 CFR 200.430(i), charges to federal activities must be based upon records that accurately reflect the work performed, are supported by a system of internal control, are incorporated into the official records of the non-federal entity, and support the distribution of the employee?s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives when the employee works on a federal award and non-federal award. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.430(i)(viii)(C) requires the entity?s system of internal controls include processes to review an after-the-fact distribution of the actual activity of each employee for whom charges were made to a federal grant based upon estimates. We noted instances where individuals who were selected for testing were calculated utilizing the incorrect salary, instances where the estimated total pay was not accurate based upon the start date for employees? positions, and an instance where an individual did not work during the period covered by the program. Cause and Effect: Violations of grant requirements could lead to a potential reduction in funding or return of funds. Recommendation: We suggest the College improve its current process in place to review the calculation of expenditures charged to the program for accuracy prior to submission of draw down. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: College management concurs with the finding and has commenced corrective measures in terms of validating the expenditures charged to the specific programs. This will be accomplished through internal controls, separation of duties and creation of a control checkpoint to verify the accuracy of grant expenditures.
College management concurs with the finding and has commenced corrective measures in terms of validating the expenditures charged to the specific programs. This will be accomplished through internal controls, separation of duties and creation of a control checkpoint to verify the accuracy of grant expenditures.
FAC accepted this audit on February 23, 2020 — management decision was due August 23, 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on March 27, 2019 — management decision was due September 27, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on January 22, 2018 — management decision was due July 22, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on February 2, 2017 — management decision was due August 2, 2017.
Data source: This information comes from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, the official repository of Single Audit data. All data is public domain. Verify this organization's audit history at fac.gov.
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and filing records.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
